alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7**  **231**

NARSEAL BATISTE , P laintiff

- Appellant ,

v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et. al.; JOEL ZIEGLER, Warden, FCI Beckley, officially and in his individual capacity; DR. DOMINICK MCLAIN, D.O. Clinical Director, officially and in his individual capacity; KEVIN THOMPSON, Health Services Administrator, officially and in his individual capacity; JOHN AND JANE DOES A

- Z, also in their official and individual capacities , De fendants

- Appellee s .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Beckley

. Irene C. Berger , District Judge. ( 5 :1 3

- cv - 13565 )

Submitted : December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Narseal Batiste , Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia , for Appellee s . Unpublished opinions are not bindin g precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Narseal Batiste seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Nam ed Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) ( 2012 ). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Batiste that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Batiste has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice. Batiste also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to submit untimely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. With respect to this order, w e h ave independently reviewed the record and find no reversible error . Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons3 stated by the district court

. Batiste v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , No. 5:13

- cv - 13565 (S.D.W. Va. July 21, 2014 , Aug. 7, 2014 )

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00725

- CV
Dos Republicas Coal Partnership

v. David Saucedo , as Floodplain Administrator and County Judge of the Maverick County Commissioners Court , and the Maverick County Commissioners Court
On Appeal from the 293rd District Court of Maverick County , Texas Trial Cause No. 14

- 03

- 29340

- MCV

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and remanded to the trial court

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee s

. We further order this decision certified below for observa nce. October 8 , 2015
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Camelot Entertainment Group, Inc. (the Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Robert P. Atwell and Steven  Istock, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.           The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.           The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Date: August 23, 2010





/s/ Robert P. Atwell


Robert P. Atwell,


Chief Executive Officer and President





Date: August 23, 2010





/s/ Steven  Istock


Steven  Istock,


Chief Financial Officer
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 554 

Recognizing the alarming mortality rate of African-American women with 

breast cancer. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 2014 

Ms. HAHN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the alarming mortality rate of African-American 

women with breast cancer. 

Whereas serious disparities persist in United States health 

care today; 

Whereas life-saving progress has been made in breast cancer 

treatment over the last two decades, but we have not seen 

the same progress in the treatment of African-American 

breast cancer patients; 

Whereas African-American women have a 41 percent higher 

breast cancer mortality rate than white women in the 

United States; 

Whereas this disparity results in 1,700 additional deaths each 

year; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 554 IH 

Whereas in Los Angeles, a black breast cancer patient is 

about 70 percent more likely to die from the disease than 

a white breast cancer patient is likely to die from the disease; 

Whereas African-American women are more likely to be diagnosed with later stage breast cancer; and 

Whereas African-American women are less likely to be 

screened for breast cancer and less likely to receive the 

medical treatment they need to fight breast cancer: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the disparity in treatment rates 

3 of African-American breast cancer patients; 

4 (2) affirms that this disparity is unacceptable 

5 and should be addressed; 

6 (3) calls for immediate action to be taken to 

7 raise awareness of breast cancer screening for all 

8 women in the United States; and 

9 (4) calls for immediate action to be taken to ex10 pand access to treatment for all breast cancer pa11 tients regardless of race. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
exv10w2



 






EXHIBIT 10.2




CORPORATE GUARANTY




Insight Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby agrees to guarantee
fully and unconditionally payment of amounts due to Dell Marketing L.P. from
ExecTechDirect Technology/Direct Alliance Corporation, including reimbursement
of Dell Marketing L.P. collection expense and/or legal expenses, for
obligations arising from purchases initiated by ExecTechDirect
Technology/Direct Alliance Corporation. Such guarantee shall not exceed
$7,284,554 excluding collection and legal expenses, and shall expire on
September 5, 2004.



Insight Enterprises, Inc. will remit to Dell Marketing L.P. the total of the
amounts incurred above, within ten (10) days of receipt of a statement from
Dell Marketing L.P. stating the ExecTechDirect Technology/Direct Alliance Corp.
is in default of its obligations to Dell Marketing L.P.



Insight Enterprises, Inc. previously executed a Corporate Guaranty in favor of
Dell Marketing L.P. for payments due from ExecTechDirect Technology/Direct
Alliance Corporation, which guaranty specified an amount not to exceed of
$7,600,000 (the “Original Guaranty”). Dell Marketing L.P. acknowledges and
agrees that this Corporate Guaranty replaces and supersedes the Original
Guaranty in its entirety as of the date of the Original Guaranty and that,
accordingly, the total amount guaranteed by Insight Enterprises, Inc. is
$7,284,554 and not the sum of the amounts guaranteed by Original Guaranty and
this Guaranty.



No modification to this Corporate Guaranty will be effective unless signed in
advance by Insight Enterprises, Inc.



All signatures to this agreement warrant that they have full and complete
authority to enter into this agreement and to sign said agreement on behalf of
themselves and/or the entity of whose behalf they are signing.



Authorized Signatures:



	 	 	 
	/s/ P. Robert Moya

	 	Date: June 17, 2004
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - products_publications(54)
              - multimedia_image(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149198(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - news_other_news(1)

## By Location

              - american samoa(1)
              - california(4)
              - colorado(2)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - florida(8)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - (-)idaho(1)
              - montana(2)
              - new jersey(2)
              - north carolina(2)
              - puerto rico(5)
              - south carolina(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - washington(1)
              - wyoming(5)

## By Year

Charts or Graphs        September 25, 2022        Atmospheric water vapor and river level during June 2022 in the NE part of Yellowstone National Park
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

788 

KA 10-00703 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN GROSSMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci,

Jr., J.), entered February 22, 2010. The order denied defendant’s

petition to modify the determination that he is a level three risk

pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his petition

pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (2) seeking to modify the prior

determination that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex

Offender Registration Act (§ 168 et seq.). As County Court properly

determined, “defendant failed to meet his ‘burden of proving the facts

supporting the requested modification by clear and convincing

evidence’ ” (People v Higgins, 55 AD3d 1303, quoting § 168-o [2]; see

People v McCollum, 83 AD3d 1504; People v Cullen, 79 AD3d 1677, lv

denied 16 NY3d 709).

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
STATE of Louisiana v. Melvin SCOTT & Dakron D. Williams

State of Louisiana v. Darron Williams

NO. 2017-KP-1656

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 8, 2019

*593Denied.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.
Exhibit 31.2

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

Principal Financial Officer

I, Cameron Reynolds, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report of ABERDENE MINES LIMITED
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)     disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a)     all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: October 8, 2004 | /s/ Cameron Reynolds       
|--------------------- | ---------------------------
|                      | Cameron Reynolds           
|                      | Principal Financial Officer





---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-21092 Summary Calendar

KENNETH B. KARPF, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
KENNETH B. KARPF, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DUNCAN E. WINE; D.E. WINE INVESTMENTS, INCORPORATED; VINTAGE HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas (H-95-CV-1019)

August 15, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kenneth B. Ka rpf appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his complaint

alleging violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities1 Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b).

2 Lovelace v. Spectrum Software, Inc. , 78 F.3d 1015 (5th Cir. 1996).

3 Williams v. WMX Technologies, Inc. , 112 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1997); Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp. , 14 F.3d 1061 (5th Cir. 1994).

2 and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 in connection with t he redemption of his

stock by Vintage Holding Corporation. The district court dismissed Karpf’s claims

on the ground that, despite an opportunity to amend, he had failed to plead fraud

with the requisite particularity. Karpf also appeals the dismissal without prejudice

of his supplemental sta te law claims for recision, usurpation of corporate

opportunity, violation of the Texas Securities Act, and a shareho lder derivative

action.

One pleading fraud must state with pa rticularity the circumstances

constituting the claimed fraud. 1 We consider a Rule 9(b) dismissal of a complaint

alleging fraud to be a dismissal for failure to state a claim for which relief can be

granted, and we review such dismissal de novo , accepting as true all well-pleaded

allegations. 2 To state a claim for federal securities fraud, the complainant must

allege “(1) a missta tement or omission; (2) of material fact; (3) made with the

intent to defraud; (4) upon which the plaintiff relied; and (5) which proximately

caused the plaintiff’s injury.” 3 Our review of the record and the briefs of the parties

persuades that Karpf’s complaint fails to allege a claim of federal securities fraud.4 Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987).

3 Karpf does not contend that the district court erred by refusing to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. That issue is deemed

abandoned. 4

AFFIRMED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(10)
              - products_maps(2)
              - products_publications(77)
              - documents_file(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)

## By Location

              - alabama(71)
              - alaska(99)
              - american samoa(7)
              - arizona(176)
              - arkansas(73)
              - california(404)
              - colorado(147)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(8)
              - connecticut(63)
              - delaware(39)
              - district of columbia(20)
              - florida(154)
              - georgia(132)
              - guam(14)
              - hawaii(54)
              - idaho(67)
              - (-)illinois(96)
              - indiana(129)
              - iowa(142)
              - kansas(68)
              - kentucky(28)
              - louisiana(156)
              - maine(68)
              - maryland(66)
              - massachusetts(91)
              - michigan(45)
              - minnesota(96)
              - mississippi(83)
              - missouri(122)
              - montana(100)
              - nebraska(47)
              - nevada(67)
              - new hampshire(46)
              - new jersey(106)
              - new mexico(71)
              - new york(188)
              - north carolina(116)
              - north dakota(106)
              - ohio(101)
              - oklahoma(55)
              - oregon(105)
              - pennsylvania(100)
              - puerto rico(80)
              - rhode island(47)
              - south carolina(117)
              - south dakota(128)
              - tennessee(36)
              - texas(199)
              - u.s. virgin islands(20)
              - utah(67)
              - vermont(80)
              - virginia(95)
              - washington(202)
              - west virginia(37)
              - wisconsin(116)
              - wyoming(71)

## By Year

              - 2024(2)

publication        January 1, 1996        Cyanazine, atrazine, and their metabolites as geochemical indicators of contaminant transport in the Mississippi River

publication        January 1, 1994        Major ions, nutrients, and trace elements in the Mississippi River near Thebes, Illinois, July through September 1993

publication        January 1, 1986        Evaluation of the U.S. Geological Survey's gaging-station network in Illinois

publication        January 1, 1984        Cost effectiveness of the U.S. Geological Survey's stream-gaging program in Illinois

staff profileAdel E Haj, Jr.

staff profileThomas Over

#### Pagination

-  First page« First 
-  Previous page‹‹ 
-                Page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
-                Current page            4
GENERAL SESSIONS.

NEW YORK,

JANUARY, 1823.

#### *The Peopl*e vs. *John Tilton.*

False Pretences.

onus pro-bandi—on whom it lies.

Present—Honourable *Richard Riker,*Recorder.

*Maxwell,*District Attorney, Counsel for The People,

*Price,*Counsel for the Prisoner.

In this case the prisoner was indicted for obtaining from the captain of a vessel certain goods belonging to the firm , . , . , , ? of Titus & Townsend, stating that lie had been sent by them for the property.

Townsend was introduced and stated that he did not send for them, and that he thought it probable his partner was out of the city at the time, but could not say with certainty. The goods were never delivered to Titus, and Townsend.

*Price*contended, in an able argument, that it xvasneces*252sary that Titus should be introduced to prove that *he*did / , , „ *1*not send for them.

*By the Court.*

It is our opinion that the evidence all ready introduced is prima facie sufficient to convict the prisoner. If he wished it to be believed that Titus sent him, he should have been introduced as a witness to that fact. We are clearly of opinion that the *onus*probandi* has. been cast upon him. The jury, however, are to decide this fact, as well as all othér things connected with the case. If they entertain reasonable doubt whether Titus did or did not send the prisoner, it is their duty to acquit.

The jury found the prisoner *Guilty.*

*

Note.—It is a well-settled rule of law, that the prosecutor must prove every essential averment in the indictment which enters into the substance of the charge. But the rule will be satisfied if he proves so much of the indictment as shows that the defendant has been guilty of . a substantive crime. 1 Chitty’s Cr. L. 558. A defendant may be found guilty upon a count in an information which charges him with having composed, printed, and published a libel, if he is proved to have *published*without any evidence that he was implicated in the *composition.*Chitty, 294, 558. 2 Camp. 584. If negative averments be introduced to show that the case is not within any of the exceptions recognized by a legislative provision, which it would be his duty to produce, as matters of defence, if he could avail himself of their benefit, there will be no necessity to support those allegations in evidence. 2 East’s Pi C. But when the law presumes the affirmative of any fact, the negative' must be proved by the party averring it in pleading; and when any act is required to be done by one, the omission of which would make him guilty of a criminal *253neglect of duty, the law presumes the affirmative, and throws the burden of proving the negative on the party who insists on it. I Chitty’s Cr. L. 559. 3 East, 192. 3 Campb. 10. 12.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-10-033-CV

SAR CAMP WISDOM PLAZA, L.P. APPELLANT

V.

HOUK AIR CONDITIONING, INC. APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered the parties’ “Agreed Motion To Dismiss.” It is the court’s

opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 20, 2010

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.